Learners’ achievement and performance is influenced by the critical role of teachers (Lasley et al., 2006). Teachers are the ones who set the standards and create the conditions for students. Teachers deliver a plethora of information to enhance learners’ achievements. However, as Akbari et al. (2008) point out, less attention has been directed to teachers than learners in English language teaching (ELT) research. Whereas, in order for any educational system to be successful, teachers should be given adequate attention (Scheopner, 2010).

One of the most central psychological mechanisms that affects action, in general, and teaching in particular, is one’s self-perceptions of one’s capabilities, which is termed “self-efficacy” (Bandura, 1997). In other words, a teacher’s level of self-efficacy is the extent to which he or she believes that he or she can enhance students’ outcome. In recent years, it has been proven that teachers’ self-efficacy could have a deep influence even on the daily lives of teachers and students (Klassen et al., 2009). In the same vein, previous studies have provided empirical evidence supporting the effective dimensions of the teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in educational contexts (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).

Teachers’ sense of burnout is another factor which has proven to have a critical role on teachers’ action. Researchers such as Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) believe that burnout is created through long-term occupational stress, particularly among those who have jobs providing services to other people. Although most of the teachers deal successfully with such senses of stress, the sense of burnout is often the endpoint and the last step of dealing unsuccessfully with stress (Jennett et al., 2003).

Another commonly voiced issue which may contribute to successful teaching and learning is classroom management ability (Marzano & Marzano, 2003). Classroom management refers to the exercises that aim to compose and guide classes so as to accomplish particular objectives. Barton et al. (1998) also indicated that in order to make the atmosphere conducive to learning some degree of classroom discipline is needed. Otherwise, the process of learning and teaching and the effectiveness of even the most carefully planned lessons will be ruined by students’ misbehavior.

Although the literature attests to the contribution of teachers’ self-efficacy, burnout, and classroom management strategies to English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ L2 achievement, scant attention has been paid to the relationship between them in the Iranian context. Therefore, this study aimed at capturing a more contextualized picture of such L2 teachers’ characteristics and learners’ achievements and sought to determine a probable correlation between the aforementioned variables.

In the light of current understanding of the crucial role of the abovementioned teachers’ characteristics in the academic success of students, this research was done. Accordingly, the following research questions are addressed:

Is there any statistically significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ use of classroom management strategies and their students’ L2 achievement?

First, the descriptive statistics of participants’ scores on the abovementioned variables were calculated (see Table 1). It is vital to mention that the scores for the subscales of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization) must be considered separately and a single score cannot be calculated for burnout (Maslach et al., 1996).

Table 1

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	Variance
Emotional exhaustion	14	37	23.10	5.20	27.12
Personal accomplishment	12	45	26.70	8.96	80.41
Depersonalization	6	24	12.07	4.19	17.57
Classroom management	32	97	76.52	11.93	142.45
Teacher self-efficacy	111	208	184.27	19.52	381.33
Students’ L2 achievement	12.28	18.01	16.12	1.12	1.26

In order to answer the first three research questions, Pearson Product Moment correlations were used, the results of which are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

		Students L2 Achievement
Emotional exhaustion	Pearson correlation	-.19
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.07
Personal accomplishment	Pearson correlation	.07
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.50
Depersonalization	Pearson correlation	-.06
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.5
Classroom management	Pearson correlation	.23*
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.03
Teacher self-efficacy	Pearson correlation	.37**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.00

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

As Table 2 indicates, the correlation between teachers’ classroom management and students’ L2 achievement (r = .23) is significant at the .05 level (p = .03 < .05, N = 82). Thus, there is a strong, positive, and significant correlation between these two variables. Moreover, there is a strong, positive, and statistically significant correlation between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ L2 achievement (r = .37, p = .00 < .05, N = 82). Therefore, these two variables are also significantly correlated with each other.

Regarding burnout components, as can be seen in Table 2, the correlation between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’ L2 achievement (r = -.19) is weak and negative (p =.07 > .05, N = 82), suggesting that in our sample, teachers’ emotional exhaustion and their students’ L2 achievement are negatively correlated with each other. However, the correlation between teachers’ personal accomplishment and students’ L2 achievement is weak and positive (r = .07, p = .50 > .05). The correlation between teachers’ depersonalization, as another component of burnout, and students’ L2 achievement (r = -.06), is also weak and negative (p = .53 > .05, N = 82). Therefore, the correlations between the components of teachers’ burnout and students’ L2 achievement were not statistically significant.

To determine which one of the teachers’ variables is the best predictor of students’ L2 achievement (Question 4), a sequential (hierarchical) multiple regression analysis was run. The results are shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

The multiple correlation coefficient, the adjusted and unadjusted R square of teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom management strategy, and components of burnout, which were entered as predictors of the students’ L2 achievement via five models, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate
1	.37 a	.144	.13	1.04
2	.40 b	.16	.13	1.04
3	.41 c	.16	.13	1.04
4	.42 d	.18	.14	1.04
5	.43 e	.18	.13	1.04

Note. Dependent variable: Students’ L2 achievement.

As can be seen in Table 3, R square for teacher self-efficacy (Model 1) is .144, which means that this variable can account for 14.4 percent of the variation of the dependent variable (the students’ L2 scores). We can see the effect of adding the other predictors in the other models. R square for Model 5, which examines the predictive power of all independent variables, is .18. Therefore, it attests that 18.9 percent of the variance of participants’ L2 achievement can be predicted from the combination of teachers’ classroom management strategy, self-efficacy, and burnout components.

In order to examine whether the combination of the predictors, that is, teachers’ characteristics (i.e., classroom management strategy, self-efficacy, and burnout components) significantly predicted their students’ L2 achievement, an ANOVA was run, the results of which are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Model		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	14.72	1	14.72	13.43	.00 a
	Residual	87.64	80	1.09
	Total	102.36	81
2	Regression	16.38	2	8.19	7.52	.00 b
	Residual	85.97	79	1.08
	Total	102.36	81
3	Regression	17.18	3	5.72	5.24	.00 c
	Residual	85.18	78	1.09
	Total	102.36	81
4	Regression	18.75	4	4.68	4.31	.00 d
	Residual	83.60	77	1.08
	Total	102.36	81
5	Regression	19.33	5	3.86	3.53	.00 e
	Residual	83.03	76	1.09
	Total	102.36	81

Note. Dependent variable: Students’ L2 achievement.

Examining the F value and significance level for the models in Table 4 shows that self-efficacy can significantly predict the students’ L2 scores, F (1, 80) = 13.43, p =.00 < .05. The combination of teachers’ variables can also predict students’ L2 achievement, F (1, 80) = 3.53, p =.00 < .05.

The amount of contribution of each of the independent variables (classroom management strategy, self-efficacy, and burnout components) to the dependent variable (L2 achievement) is presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig.	Collinearity statistics
		B	Std. Error	Beta			VIF
1	(Constant)	12.10	1.10		10.97	.00
	Teacher self-efficacy	.022	.006	.37	3.67	.00	1.00
2	(Constant)	11.56	1.18		9.79	.00
	Teacher self-efficacy	.020	.006	.33	3.13	.00	1.10
	Classroom management	.013	.010	.13	1.24	.22	1.10
3	(Constant)	12.32	1.47		8.34	.00
	Teacher self-efficacy	.018	.00	.31	2.84	.00	1.16
	Classroom management	.012	.010	.12	1.15	.25	1.10
	Emotional exhaustion	-.020	.023	-.09	-.85	.39	1.08
4	(Constant)	11.65	1.57		7.41	.00
	Teacher self-efficacy	.018	.00	.32	2.89	.00	1.16
	Classroom management	.014	.01	.14	1.35	.18	1.14
	Emotional exhaustion	-.019	.02	-.08	-.80	.42	1.08
	Personal accomplishment	.016	.01	.12	1.20	.23	1.03
5	(Constant)	11.61	1.58		7.35	.00
	Teacher self-efficacy	.018	.00	.31	2.82	.00	1.17
	Classroom management	.014	.01	.14	1.35	.18	1.14
	Emotional exhaustion	-.033	.03	-.15	-1.08	.28	1.84
	Personal accomplishment	.020	.01	.15	1.38	.17	1.19
	Depersonalization	.028	.03	.10	.72	.47	1.88

Note. Dependent variable: Students’ L2 achievement.

Based on the results presented in Table 5, the standardized coefficients Beta (.37) and the T value (3.67) indicates that teachers’ self-efficacy (sig. = .00) is the strongest predictor of students’ L2 achievement. But the other independent variables, that is, classroom management and components of burnout, by themselves, do not significantly contribute to the prediction of the dependent variable (students’ L2 achievement).

This study contributes to the rather scarce literature on the association between EFL teachers’ classroom management orientations, self-efficacy, and burnout components and learners’ L2 learning in the context of Iran. Moreover, the extent of the probable contribution of each of the teacher’s characteristics to their students’ L2 achievement has been examined. Overall, the findings of the statistical analyses indicated that the teacher classroom management strategies and self-efficacy were significantly related to the dependent variable (students’ L2 achievement). Nevertheless, all the components of burnout did not have a significant relationship with learners’ L2 development.

As the teachers’ classroom management orientation is concerned, the findings of this study corroborate with the results of a number of studies which also reported a positive significant relationship between classroom management and students’ achievement (e.g., Rahimi & Hosseini-Karkami, 2015; Saghir et al., 2017; Talebi et al., 2015). We found that there was a strong relationship between teachers’ management orientations and students’ L2 enhancement. It confirms the idea that classroom management builds a situation that facilitates and supports both academic and social emotional learning (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006, as cited in Mahmoodi et al., 2015). However, this finding is in contrast with those of Mahmoodi et al. (2015), who found a significant negative correlation between third-year EFL teachers’ classroom management orientations and their students’ L2 achievement. This result also consolidates the idea that classroom management is a setup through which teachers build up and keep up conditions to empower learners in accomplishing educational destinations productively (Barnabas et al., 2010).

Results regarding the second research question showed that teachers’ self-efficacy had a significant and positive relationship with learners’ L2 achievement. Such a link has been demonstrated through many studies (e.g., Akbari et al., 2008; Good & Brophy, 2003; Hassan, 2019; Mojavezi & Poodineh-Tamiz, 2012). This finding is in line with social cognitive theory that suggests there is a circular relationship between efficacy beliefs and teaching practices (Bandura, 1997). This relationship can be explained by the persistence found in teachers who have high self-efficacy (Good & Brophy, 2003).

As for the results pertinent to the burnout components in this research, depersonalization and emotional exhaustion had a negative correlation with students’ final scores while a positive correlation was observed between the other subcomponent of burnout, that is, personal accomplishment, and the dependent variable. However, all of these correlation coefficients were weak and statistically insignificant. These findings are contrary to most of the research findings to date that suggest a significant correlation exists between burnout and second language achievement (e.g., Rostami et al., 2015; Zhang & Sapp, 2008). One reason for this non-significant relationship might be attributed to the influence that burnout can have on teachers’ grading practices. As a result of burnout, teachers might become more lenient, careless, and arbitrary to avoid further problems and complaints arising from low grades. It can also be assumed as a form of compensation for their inadequate teaching (Arens & Morin, 2016). Another reason might be that in Iranian high schools, third-year students are mostly motivated enough to study English because most of them aim to do well on their coming university entrance examination. Therefore, in comparison with other educational settings, their teachers’ sense of burnout might not have seriously demotivated them so as to reduce their learning efforts. Besides, as Pyhältö et al. (2020) believe, the most important antecedent of teacher burnout is years of experience. Therefore, the other possible reason for this finding may be that the participating teachers in the present study who were in a low range of age (maximum 45), had not yet experienced high levels of burnout to influence students’ learning. Likewise, in the research done by Roohani and Dayeri (2019), low levels of burnout were reported for EFL teachers, for the majority of the participants, and a significant effect on students’ motivation was not observed.

Another possible explanation for the insignificant relationship between teacher burnout and L2 achievement in this study is that based on the results of the research by Arens and Morin (2016), the reductive effect of burnout on L2 learning was shown to be more pronounced when students’ achievement was assessed via standardized achievement tests than when it was measured through school grades. That is, as reported by Madigan and Kim (2021), in a systematic review of the related literature, teachers who suffer from high levels of burnout may not be able to create an appropriate teaching/learning context to help students be successful in standardized achievement tests. Nonetheless, the school grades are assigned based on subjective scoring and mainly depend on teachers’ individual preferences for evaluation and grading (McMillan et al., 2002). As it turns out, school grades are generally less influenced by teachers’ burnout. In addition, teachers’ sense of burnout may cause them to apply stricter assessment practices in order to compensate for their suboptimal teaching and to force learners to rely on more self-initiated learning which does not cause extensive decrease in language learning. However, the obtained result for the effect of burnout components in the current study supports that of Shamsafrouz and Haghverdi (2015) who similarly did not find a significant relationship between teachers’ burnout and their teaching practices.

Though insignificant, the negative effect of teachers’ burnout on effective teaching found in this research resonates with previous research (e.g., Ghonsooly & Raeesi, 2012; Pishghadam & Sahebjam 2012). As found by the studies done by Rostami et al. (2015) and Zhang and Saap (2008), one reason for such negative effect of teachers’ burnout on their students’ L2 achievement may be the reductive impact of it on students’ motivation for L2 learning. That is to say, the low immediacy and lack of enthusiasm in teachers who experience burnout can have a negative effect on students’ attitudes towards learning.

Moreover, in the current study, it was found that teachers’ self-efficacy, in contrast to the other independent variables, was the strongest predictor of learners’ L2 success. Based on Ashton and Webb (1986), the reason for this finding can be that teachers with higher self-efficacy tend to show more enthusiasm for their students’ growth, are receptive of student initiative, and are responsive to student needs. In the same vein, Gürbüztürk and Şad (2009) assert that self-efficient teachers persist for a longer time than their peers when confronted with challenges, show more enthusiasm for their job, are more resilient when they are faced with setbacks, and generally are perceived by others as more effective teachers. This finding can be supported with reference to the results of some studies (e.g., Good & Brophy, 2003; Midgley et al., 1989) which have reported the greater influence of a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy on students’ success in contrast to some other teacher characteristics. For example, Listiani et al. (2019) investigated the influence of both teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management on students’ final exam results and found that not only self-efficacy had effects on students’ better gains, but it also fortified teacher’s management strategies. It was observed that the teachers with a higher level of self-efficacy in teaching led to more classroom management for both authoritarian and authoritative teachers. That is why the teachers who have high self-efficacy are reflective and flexible in the classroom, and always try to find a fun method in teaching. Therefore, those teachers are less likely to experience student misbehavior, demotivation, or failure, which are considered important causes for teachers’ burnout.

Taken together, the results of the current study put forward the prospect of developing a deeper understanding of EFL teachers’ classroom management orientation, self-efficacy, burnout, and their impact on students’ achievement. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the sense of self-efficacy of teachers, as one of the critical teacher variables, should be strengthened so that teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of their competencies will increase in order to yield favorable results. That is to say, educational practitioners who worry about students’ confidence, educational declining level, deficiencies and learning approaches, need to enhance their self-efficacy to overcome the troublesome issues. Theoretically speaking, in order to improve the standards and competencies that EFL teachers are expected to perform, considerations regarding the construct of teachers’ self-efficacy should be further revised.

Moreover, the findings of this study regarding teachers’ management orientation have implications for EFL teacher trainers and syllabus designers for teacher training courses to incorporate necessary programs for EFL teachers to effectively improve classroom management methodologies. On the other hand, teachers should be encouraged to act as directors or facilitators to provide an atmosphere in which students have the opportunities to speak, act, and learn effectively.

In the same token, based on our results concerning teachers’ burnout components, educators and supervisors should know that the burnout felt by teachers can cause depression, frustration, and demotivation for their teaching practice. Accordingly, it is proposed that educational administrators consider the probable causes of teacher burnout and help teachers become equipped with the necessary coping strategies, such as problem-solving techniques, and provide better professional as well as financial support for teachers. Teachers also need to develop realistic expectations about their job requirements and the teaching-learning process. In sum, it seems reasonable to suggest that teacher education programs, and particularly Iranian policy makers, make preservice and in-service teachers aware of the effective teachers’ characteristics and provide them with psychological and social support if the aim is to educate efficient teachers, who, in turn, aim to enhance students’ growth.

As with other studies, this research also has some limitations; here the focus was on third-year high school teachers with mostly a bachelor’s degree in English translation or teaching. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to teachers in other areas of education or with higher degrees. Besides, this research was conducted using the ELT context of one city in Iran. Hence, care should be taken in generalizing results for other settings.

The current study provides possible directions for further research. Since each of the teacher characteristics investigated in this study is a multifaceted construct that might have varied effects and presentations across different tasks and settings, it would be beneficial to investigate them through further studies that provide a deeper realization of how these teachers’ characteristics influence learners’ L2 achievement. As another proposal, further mixed-methods research employing a combination of several data collection instruments like observations of teaching performance, questionnaires, and multiple interviews as additive sources of data for exploring teachers’ characteristics is suggested. Last but not least, further studies can probe both personal and environmental factors collectively in explaining EFL teachers’ traits.